If a creature was petrifiedoutside of an antimagic field, but then the statue was moved into a antimagic field, would the creature have its petrified condition removed?
Would there be a difference in how the statue would react to the field if it was petrified by a medusa compared to the spell prismatic spray? as the petrifying gaze from the Medusa isn't stated as being magical, compared to the magical nature of a spell.
I would appreciate any insight you could give on this interaction.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A deck of playing cards are a great way to randomise encounters
the concentration portion of flesh to stone can be suspended by an antimagic field (even the petrification), but if concentration was maintained the creature would revert to stone if they left the field or if the field ended while concentration was maintained.
A question would be if the petrified creature was still in the field (and not petrified) and the concentration period of Flesh to Stone ended due to duration. The spell says then the petrification lasts until cured, and the spell is no longer active to be affected by antimagic...but the creature wouldn't be petrified at the time, so what happens?
1) the creature petrifies instantly inside the field
2) the creature petrifies as soon as they leave the field or the field ends
3) the creature avoids petrification entirely since they weren't petrified at the time the spell ended. (this would be my choice, since the magic that "finalizes" the petrification would not have been active)
For instantaneous spell effects, antimagic field would prevent the spell from targeting anyone in it but only if it were active when the spell in question was cast, but it would not halt the petrification process if applied after the spell was cast. For a medusa, the petrification ability is not considered magical, so antimagic would have no effect whatsoever.
Disagree with the above. The spell may not be ongoing for prismatic spray or a fully realized flesh to stone, but the magical effect caused by the spell certainly is, and antimagic field suppresses magical effects as well as spells.
Yes, the statue would become a person again in the field as the permanent petrification was suspended, but once leaving the field it would resume and they'd re-petrify.
I would consider that the anti-magic shell would work while the rolls are still being made for the Indigo beam, but once three failures have been made then the spell is over and the petrification is permanent.
Disagree with the above. The spell may not be ongoing for prismatic spray or a fully realized flesh to stone, but the magical effect caused by the spell certainly is, and antimagic field suppresses magical effects as well as spells.
Yes, the statue would become a person again in the field as the permanent petrification was suspended, but once leaving the field it would resume and they'd re-petrify.
The above is wrong, see SAC
Can you use dispel magic on the creations of a spell like animate dead or affect those creations with antimagic field?
Whenever you wonder whether a spell’s effects can be dispelled or suspended, you need to answer one question: is the spell’s duration instantaneous? If the answer is yes, there is nothing to dispel or suspend. Here’s why: the effects of an instantaneous spell are brought into being by magic, but the effects aren’t sustained by magic. The magic flares for a split second and then vanishes. For example, the instantaneous spell animate dead harnesses magical energy to turn a corpse or a pile of bones into an undead creature. That necromantic magic is present for an instant and is then gone. The resulting undead now exists without the magic’s help. Casting dispel magic on the creature can’t end its mockery of life, and the undead can wander into an antimagic field with no adverse effect.
Another example: cure wounds instantaneously restores hit points to a creature. Because the spell’s duration is instantaneous, the restoration can’t be later dispelled. And you don’t suddenly lose hit points if you step into an antimagic field !
(3) Even if you disagree about 1 or 2... nothing in that SAC entry says that Antimagic Field would fail to suppress other ongoing magical effects, like petrification.
I don't understand this impulse that people have to nerf Antimagic Field. The spell clearly distinguishes that it suspends BOTH spells AND other magical effects. "But this magical effect isn't a spell any longer!" is absolutely no defense against the fact it's plainly magic.
I will add to the above by saying that, while flesh to stone is a spell with an extended duration, after that duration finishes the same rules would apply as to the instantaneous spell. again, of the possible options regarding the ending of the duration inside of an anti-magic field, I believe the most accurate would the the spell would fail to permanently petrify a creature if the creature was not petrified at the time the duration expired, just as if the creature had succeeded on the saving throws.
(3) Even if you disagree about 1 or 2... nothing in that SAC entry says that Antimagic Field would fail to suppress other ongoing magical effects, like petrification.
I don't understand this impulse that people have to nerf Antimagic Field. The spell clearly distinguishes that it suspends BOTH spells AND other magical effects. "But this magical effect isn't a spell any longer!" is absolutely no defense against the fact it's plainly magic.
You might disagree (and are free to rule in your games), but SAC is RAW.
"Other Magical Effects" do exist, the remnants of a spell whose duration has expired are not one of them.
I get very very tired of explaining to people on the rules and game mechanics forums that spells do what they say they do. But, spells do what they say they do. "Other magical effects" is not a defined game term, there's no page in the PHB or DMG that defines what a "magical effect" is. Any definition that excludes 'the effects of magical spells' from "magic effects" is certainly not one I would use at my table, or which I think is very persuasive as RAI. You're free to rule in your games however you like, but RAW, Antimagic Field suppresses magical effects unless they're created by a god or an artifact, OR active spells. Meaning, a magical effect doesn’t need to be an active spell, obviously.
I also get very tired of explaining that SAC is not RAW, it's a guide to help DMs make their own table rulings. The SAC has no authority to contradict any written rules in the PHB, is not a part of the core rules, and isn't anything more than an (arguably) persuasive source for what you're "free to rule" in your own games. Very very arguably, SAC might help us understand RAI sometimes, because presumably JC offers advice and rulings which tracks the intent of the creative team when writing the rules. Rulings like the one on Antimagic Field are a great example of why that's not necessarily true though, since he conflates Dispel Magic and Antimagic Field, which don't really operate the same way at all.
It is official rulINGS. Rulings aren’t rules, in a system with printed rule books instead of citeable case law. When a ref throws a yellow flag in football, they haven’t written a rule. It’s official, but other refs might throw that flag differently, and while you as an amateur ref might learn from how other refs throw flags, it doesn’t control the meaning of the printed rule book.
read the SAC intro. It says this about itself too, I’m not just some kind of SAC-hating *******.
Whatever, I’ll quit arguing about SAC, so every thread doesn’t become the same thread with time. Suffice to say, the spell description of flesh to stone ITSELF tells you that the petrification can be reversed magically, and how that functions, so clearly it isn’t a permanent non-magical effect. It’s an effect of a spell, and the basic rules “What is a spell?” section calls those “magical effects,” and if that isn’t good enough for you... then I do t know what possibly could be, sounds like your heart is set.
JC's logic in the SAC for this ruling is pretty sound though...Do you remove HP granted from Cure Wounds when a creature enters an antimagic field? the spell is instantaneous, the hitpoints are still there. Do you rule a person stabilized by Spare the Dying goes unstable in an anti-magic field? They are still at 0 HP. How about if I use telekinesis to start a ball rolling down a hill? If it rolls into an antimagic field, does it stop because magic started it rolling? How can you be sure that any of these aren't residual magical effects ?
I would argue that Undeath and Petrification are not inherently magical. Medusas and other petrifying creatures produce the exact same effects with the exact same mechanics without magical sources. Just because something is supernatural to the real world doesn't mean it's magical in D&D. Spells like prismatic spray are instantaneous, the process of petrification (using the exact same method of progression) can be non-magical, so if an instantaneous spell "starts the ball rolling" so to say, then why is it that the "natural" process that follows any more magical than when a medusa does it?
The only exception here is when the process is described as explicitly magical. Flesh to Stone is one such process, because the magic continues over a duration, and only becomes permanent if the duration is maxed. The magic is clearly active because the spell is active.
If you want Anti-magic field to be an all-powerful end-anything-I-want-it-to spell, thats fine, but JC and the writers clearly wanted a limitation on the spell, which they have described as being "can't stop an instantaneous spell's effect after the spell ends". If you don't like it that's ok, but they are the creators of the game, and they gave you the means as DM to do differently (Homebrew)
Whatever, I’ll quit arguing about SAC, so every thread doesn’t become the same thread with time. Suffice to say, the spell description of flesh to stone ITSELF tells you that the petrification can be reversed magically, and how that functions, so clearly it isn’t a permanent non-magical effect. It’s an effect of a spell, and the basic rules “What is a spell?” section calls those “magical effects,” and if that isn’t good enough for you... then I do t know what possibly could be, sounds like your heart is set.
Just because Magic can reverse an effect does not make the effect magical. Magic reverses non-magical effects all the time (Damage, conditions, etc)
True. But whether or not you’d consider the state of “being injured” as a magical effect, an ongoing Condition-with-capital-C is clearly an “effect”, yes? So when that condition is imposed by magic, described by magic, with requirements for how it can be reversed by magic... what’s missing that you’d look for in a magical effect? It can’t just be “an active spell,” because spells are distinct from magical effects.
Thought experiment: swap anything, any other condition in for petrified in flesh to stone: would you be making the same argument if it told you that creature was charmed while you maintain concentration unless you finish the whole duration and then it’s charmed permanently? Would you really say that that charm is not a magical affect, just because it lasts until removed by magic?!?!
I don’t see what it is about petrification that justifies treating it as less magical than charmed stunned paralyzed afraid etc. etc. would be.
Thought experiment: swap anything, any other condition in for petrified in flesh to stone: would you be making the same argument if it told you that creature was charmed while you maintain concentration unless you finish the whole duration and then it’s charmed permanently? Would you really say that that charm is not a magical affect, just because it lasts until removed by magic?!?!
I don’t see what it is about petrification that justifies treating it as less magical than charmed stunned paralyzed afraid etc. etc. would be.
I would rule that such a charmed condition is non-magical after its spell ends. (almost like a form of brain damage or madness). But I can't think of an example that meets your criteria to test the theory... the closest is the GOOlock's "Create Thrall" ability, but that uses "magic" in the description so even though it is "permanent" it is magical per the SAC determination matrix.
As to "why" I can't say, other than the fact that petrification rules tend to exceed the duration of the spell that causes it, and for most other conditions (except for exhaustion), they don't tend to exceed the spell durations. Very few spells that cause a condition do so permanently; and most of the ones that do cause petrification.
At the very least, I would think that Poisoned, Exhaustion, and Blinded easily would easily pass that test and be considered non-magical once the spell ended.
And while we lack a specific example, the spell modify memory is actually very close for the purposes of charm. Its a spell that applies a temporary magical condition that, once completed, leaves a lasting physical effect on the creature. Anitmagic Field and Dispel Magic have no effect on a creature who has been affected by Modify Memory.
Just found one...the awaken spell inbues the charmed condition on the awakened creature that lasts for 30 days beyond the duration of the spell (which is instantaneous). That I could see as being a non-magical profound gratitude towards its creator, that is ultimately shaped by its treatment, per the spell description.
well, I would not agree about any of those rulings, and I think they expose the unreasonableness of your position. “You must lift the curse before this hourglass empties, or it will last forever!” is a fairly standard trope, and not any different than what’s going on in this or any other spell with a magical effect that extends beyond the spells duration. Guess we just have a fundamental disagreement on not only the language of the spell, but also on our ideas of what magic is.¯\_(ツ)_/¯
If a creature was petrified outside of an antimagic field, but then the statue was moved into a antimagic field, would the creature have its petrified condition removed?
Would there be a difference in how the statue would react to the field if it was petrified by a medusa compared to the spell prismatic spray? as the petrifying gaze from the Medusa isn't stated as being magical, compared to the magical nature of a spell.
I would appreciate any insight you could give on this interaction.
A deck of playing cards are a great way to randomise encounters
In order to be effected by antimagic field, it has to be an ongoing magic effect.
As far as I can tell prismatic spray imparts a condition instantly and is not dispellable.
If a spell or effect said the purification ends when the spell/effect does, then that could be affected.
the concentration portion of flesh to stone can be suspended by an antimagic field (even the petrification), but if concentration was maintained the creature would revert to stone if they left the field or if the field ended while concentration was maintained.
A question would be if the petrified creature was still in the field (and not petrified) and the concentration period of Flesh to Stone ended due to duration. The spell says then the petrification lasts until cured, and the spell is no longer active to be affected by antimagic...but the creature wouldn't be petrified at the time, so what happens?
1) the creature petrifies instantly inside the field
2) the creature petrifies as soon as they leave the field or the field ends
3) the creature avoids petrification entirely since they weren't petrified at the time the spell ended. (this would be my choice, since the magic that "finalizes" the petrification would not have been active)
For instantaneous spell effects, antimagic field would prevent the spell from targeting anyone in it but only if it were active when the spell in question was cast, but it would not halt the petrification process if applied after the spell was cast. For a medusa, the petrification ability is not considered magical, so antimagic would have no effect whatsoever.
Disagree with the above. The spell may not be ongoing for prismatic spray or a fully realized flesh to stone, but the magical effect caused by the spell certainly is, and antimagic field suppresses magical effects as well as spells.
Yes, the statue would become a person again in the field as the permanent petrification was suspended, but once leaving the field it would resume and they'd re-petrify.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I would consider that the anti-magic shell would work while the rolls are still being made for the Indigo beam, but once three failures have been made then the spell is over and the petrification is permanent.
The above is wrong, see SAC
Can you use dispel magic on the creations of a spell like animate dead or affect those creations with antimagic field?
Whenever you wonder whether a spell’s effects can be dispelled or suspended, you need to answer one question: is the spell’s duration instantaneous? If the answer is yes, there is nothing to dispel or suspend. Here’s why: the effects of an instantaneous spell are brought into being by magic, but the effects aren’t sustained by magic. The magic flares for a split second and then vanishes. For example, the instantaneous spell animate dead harnesses magical energy to turn a corpse or a pile of bones into an undead creature. That necromantic magic is present for an instant and is then gone. The resulting undead now exists without the magic’s help. Casting dispel magic on the creature can’t end its mockery of life, and the undead can wander into an antimagic field with no adverse effect.
Another example: cure wounds instantaneously restores hit points to a creature. Because the spell’s duration is instantaneous, the restoration can’t be later dispelled. And you don’t suddenly lose hit points if you step into an antimagic field !
In contrast, a spell like conjure woodland beingshas a non-instantaneous duration, which means its creations can be ended by dispel magic and they temporarily disappear within an antimagic field .
(1) Dispel Magic is different (and less powerful) than Antimagic Field. Dispel Magic doesn't (explicitly) end magical effects, Antimagic Field does.
(2) JC had no basis for saying that Animate Dead creations resist Antimagic Field, since that explicitly contradicts the language of Antimagic Field. He was wrong.
(3) Even if you disagree about 1 or 2... nothing in that SAC entry says that Antimagic Field would fail to suppress other ongoing magical effects, like petrification.
I don't understand this impulse that people have to nerf Antimagic Field. The spell clearly distinguishes that it suspends BOTH spells AND other magical effects. "But this magical effect isn't a spell any longer!" is absolutely no defense against the fact it's plainly magic.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I will add to the above by saying that, while flesh to stone is a spell with an extended duration, after that duration finishes the same rules would apply as to the instantaneous spell. again, of the possible options regarding the ending of the duration inside of an anti-magic field, I believe the most accurate would the the spell would fail to permanently petrify a creature if the creature was not petrified at the time the duration expired, just as if the creature had succeeded on the saving throws.
You might disagree (and are free to rule in your games), but SAC is RAW.
"Other Magical Effects" do exist, the remnants of a spell whose duration has expired are not one of them.
I get very very tired of explaining to people on the rules and game mechanics forums that spells do what they say they do. But, spells do what they say they do. "Other magical effects" is not a defined game term, there's no page in the PHB or DMG that defines what a "magical effect" is. Any definition that excludes 'the effects of magical spells' from "magic effects" is certainly not one I would use at my table, or which I think is very persuasive as RAI. You're free to rule in your games however you like, but RAW, Antimagic Field suppresses magical effects unless they're created by a god or an artifact, OR active spells. Meaning, a magical effect doesn’t need to be an active spell, obviously.
I also get very tired of explaining that SAC is not RAW, it's a guide to help DMs make their own table rulings. The SAC has no authority to contradict any written rules in the PHB, is not a part of the core rules, and isn't anything more than an (arguably) persuasive source for what you're "free to rule" in your own games. Very very arguably, SAC might help us understand RAI sometimes, because presumably JC offers advice and rulings which tracks the intent of the creative team when writing the rules. Rulings like the one on Antimagic Field are a great example of why that's not necessarily true though, since he conflates Dispel Magic and Antimagic Field, which don't really operate the same way at all.
.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
It is official rulINGS. Rulings aren’t rules, in a system with printed rule books instead of citeable case law. When a ref throws a yellow flag in football, they haven’t written a rule. It’s official, but other refs might throw that flag differently, and while you as an amateur ref might learn from how other refs throw flags, it doesn’t control the meaning of the printed rule book.
read the SAC intro. It says this about itself too, I’m not just some kind of SAC-hating *******.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Whatever, I’ll quit arguing about SAC, so every thread doesn’t become the same thread with time. Suffice to say, the spell description of flesh to stone ITSELF tells you that the petrification can be reversed magically, and how that functions, so clearly it isn’t a permanent non-magical effect. It’s an effect of a spell, and the basic rules “What is a spell?” section calls those “magical effects,” and if that isn’t good enough for you... then I do t know what possibly could be, sounds like your heart is set.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
JC's logic in the SAC for this ruling is pretty sound though...Do you remove HP granted from Cure Wounds when a creature enters an antimagic field? the spell is instantaneous, the hitpoints are still there. Do you rule a person stabilized by Spare the Dying goes unstable in an anti-magic field? They are still at 0 HP. How about if I use telekinesis to start a ball rolling down a hill? If it rolls into an antimagic field, does it stop because magic started it rolling? How can you be sure that any of these aren't residual magical effects ?
I would argue that Undeath and Petrification are not inherently magical. Medusas and other petrifying creatures produce the exact same effects with the exact same mechanics without magical sources. Just because something is supernatural to the real world doesn't mean it's magical in D&D. Spells like prismatic spray are instantaneous, the process of petrification (using the exact same method of progression) can be non-magical, so if an instantaneous spell "starts the ball rolling" so to say, then why is it that the "natural" process that follows any more magical than when a medusa does it?
The only exception here is when the process is described as explicitly magical. Flesh to Stone is one such process, because the magic continues over a duration, and only becomes permanent if the duration is maxed. The magic is clearly active because the spell is active.
If you want Anti-magic field to be an all-powerful end-anything-I-want-it-to spell, thats fine, but JC and the writers clearly wanted a limitation on the spell, which they have described as being "can't stop an instantaneous spell's effect after the spell ends". If you don't like it that's ok, but they are the creators of the game, and they gave you the means as DM to do differently (Homebrew)
Just because Magic can reverse an effect does not make the effect magical. Magic reverses non-magical effects all the time (Damage, conditions, etc)
True. But whether or not you’d consider the state of “being injured” as a magical effect, an ongoing Condition-with-capital-C is clearly an “effect”, yes? So when that condition is imposed by magic, described by magic, with requirements for how it can be reversed by magic... what’s missing that you’d look for in a magical effect? It can’t just be “an active spell,” because spells are distinct from magical effects.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Thought experiment: swap anything, any other condition in for petrified in flesh to stone: would you be making the same argument if it told you that creature was charmed while you maintain concentration unless you finish the whole duration and then it’s charmed permanently? Would you really say that that charm is not a magical affect, just because it lasts until removed by magic?!?!
I don’t see what it is about petrification that justifies treating it as less magical than charmed stunned paralyzed afraid etc. etc. would be.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I would rule that such a charmed condition is non-magical after its spell ends. (almost like a form of brain damage or madness). But I can't think of an example that meets your criteria to test the theory... the closest is the GOOlock's "Create Thrall" ability, but that uses "magic" in the description so even though it is "permanent" it is magical per the SAC determination matrix.
As to "why" I can't say, other than the fact that petrification rules tend to exceed the duration of the spell that causes it, and for most other conditions (except for exhaustion), they don't tend to exceed the spell durations. Very few spells that cause a condition do so permanently; and most of the ones that do cause petrification.
At the very least, I would think that Poisoned, Exhaustion, and Blinded easily would easily pass that test and be considered non-magical once the spell ended.
And while we lack a specific example, the spell modify memory is actually very close for the purposes of charm. Its a spell that applies a temporary magical condition that, once completed, leaves a lasting physical effect on the creature. Anitmagic Field and Dispel Magic have no effect on a creature who has been affected by Modify Memory.
Just found one...the awaken spell inbues the charmed condition on the awakened creature that lasts for 30 days beyond the duration of the spell (which is instantaneous). That I could see as being a non-magical profound gratitude towards its creator, that is ultimately shaped by its treatment, per the spell description.
well, I would not agree about any of those rulings, and I think they expose the unreasonableness of your position. “You must lift the curse before this hourglass empties, or it will last forever!” is a fairly standard trope, and not any different than what’s going on in this or any other spell with a magical effect that extends beyond the spells duration. Guess we just have a fundamental disagreement on not only the language of the spell, but also on our ideas of what magic is.¯\_(ツ)_/¯
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.